Fulton, a Pennfield High School senior and son of Freedom Firearms co-owner Jared Fulton, filed a lawsuit against the retail giant in Oakland County Circuit Court on Tuesday for refusing to let him buy a shotgun because of his age....Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old Oregon man, sued Walmart and a Field & Stream store owned by Dick's after he was not allowed to buy a 22-caliber rifle because of his age.

Watson tried to buy a firearm at Field & Stream four days before the retailers announced their new policies and about a week later from Walmart. He was turned away both times.

Fulton wants Dick's to rescind its new policy, said his attorney, Jim Makowski. He's also asking for monetary damages.

"If they truly don't want to sell to anyone between 18 and 20, then they can elect not to sell firearms in their stores," Makowski said, "but they cannot sell to anyone based on age."...

Unless this case or any other one like it goes up to the Federal Circuit level, I think the only thing that's going to happen is that Dick's and Walmart (and any others like them) will stop selling firearms entirely. I doubt Fulton will get any monetary damages.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

Fulton, a Pennfield High School senior and son of Freedom Firearms co-owner Jared Fulton, filed a lawsuit against the retail giant in Oakland County Circuit Court on Tuesday for refusing to let him buy a shotgun because of his age.
...
Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old Oregon man, sued Walmart and a Field & Stream store owned by Dick's after he was not allowed to buy a 22-caliber rifle because of his age.

Watson tried to buy a firearm at Field & Stream four days before the retailers announced their new policies and about a week later from Walmart. He was turned away both times.

Fulton wants Dick's to rescind its new policy, said his attorney, Jim Makowski. He's also asking for monetary damages.

"If they truly don't want to sell to anyone between 18 and 20, then they can elect not to sell firearms in their stores," Makowski said, "but they cannot sell to anyone based on age."
...

Unless this case or any other one like it goes up to the Federal Circuit level, I think the only thing that's going to happen is that Dick's and Walmart (and any others like them) will stop selling firearms entirely. I doubt Fulton will get any monetary damages.

I think that's a great outcome. Stores that don't support the Second Amendment because they either hate guns (Dicks) or care more about how not towing the PC culture line effects profits (Walmart) should not get a dime of gun owners money. Buy from places that support the Second Amendment and American cultural values, not ones that are willing to sell you out at the drop of a hat. Capitalism should not be a religion that lets them justify in our minds any stand they decide take. Especially not to us gun owners and Americans.

Edited by mic6010, 03 November 2018 - 09:02 AM.

"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night." - John Hendricks.

I think that's a great outcome. Stores that don't support the Second Amendment because they either hate guns (Dicks) or care more about how not towing the PC culture line effects profits (Walmart) should not get a dime of gun owners money. Buy from places that support the Second Amendment and American cultural values, not ones that are willing to sell you out at the drop of a hat. Capitalism should not be a religion that lets them justify in our minds any stand they decide take. Especially not to us gun owners and Americans.

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to buy cars... ~unknown

The problem is not guns! It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice. ~unknown

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.

While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams 1779 to James Warren

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

The only problem for the retailer is there is a Michigan age discrimination statute. Since it is a corporate policy of no sales to persons under 21, they are clearly in violation of state law. As for the lawsuit becoming moot, I don’t think the case can be considered moot unless the corporation changes the policy before resolution is reached. But even in that case, a violation of state law has occurred.

Can someone please find the Michigan age discrimination statute? I'm curious to read if it's even relevant to denial of sales of a retail product. Research is hard on my mobile phone.
Edit
Found it

Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:

(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service [which includes retailers -EV] because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

( Print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status, or that an individual's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

So it looks like Michigan created a law to prevent a Gay Cake problem in their state, and included age as a protected class.

It does look like it has merit in light of this. I still expect Dick's to stall the trial until the kid is 21 as I believe he ages out of having standing. The strategic way to head that off is a procession of suits with 18 year old after 18 year old filing the same suit.

I fully expect Dick's legal defense to stall this case until he's 21, then say it's moot and drop the case.

I've argued in favor of the store owners in Illinois being able to deny sales to anyone for any reason based upon decisions made in good faith, but they get accused of racial or gender discrimination if they don't sell to someone who looks to them like they might be involved in a gang because they have a tattoo on their face and wear gang colors. Sellers of firearms need immunity from discrimination suits.

So we'll cheer this kid on over his age discrimination suit because he's going after a retail chain we love to hate on. Seems like this case is a dog to me and we're being shortsighted to cheer it on. Sorry guys, just the way I see it.

The only problem for the retailer is there is a Michigan age discrimination statute. Since it is a corporate policy of no sales to persons under 21, they are clearly in violation of state law. As for the lawsuit becoming moot, I don’t think the case can be considered moot unless the corporation changes the policy before resolution is reached. But even in that case, a violation of state law has occurred.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was my understanding (subject to correction) that TRJ's take was going to be correct. I haven't actually seen the lawsuit but, if the plaintiff sued in his own person (as opposed to some sort of "Under 21 Gun Owners, LLC"), it was my understanding that he'd lose standing the second he turned 21, regardless of other statutes.

Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

My personal opinion on this is that the lawsuit is incredibly silly. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would want to force an organization that hates them to take their money. There are more than enough small, local gun stores (even in Illinois) that I'd much rather give them money and reward them instead.

Bri

"Your father's 1911.. Not as random or clumsy as a Glock. A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -- Obi Wan Kenobi

It was my understanding (subject to correction) that TRJ's take was going to be correct. I haven't actually seen the lawsuit but, if the plaintiff sued in his own person (as opposed to some sort of "Under 21 Gun Owners, LLC"), it was my understanding that he'd lose standing the second he turned 21, regardless of other statutes.

Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

My personal opinion on this is that the lawsuit is incredibly silly. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would want to force an organization that hates them to take their money. There are more than enough small, local gun stores (even in Illinois) that I'd much rather give them money and reward them instead.

Bri

Courts can be silly like that, but in my opinion even if he turn 21 his rights were previously denied and the case should continue.

No 2A case is incredibly silly. No one should deny you your rights. This case may set precedent that says guns must be sold to those of legal age.

This may make state laws being passed also struck.

And if you follow Kavanaugh, he makes case decisions based on the length a law has been enacted.

We might not win his favor in repealing the NFA as it has been on the books for 84 years.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation